A law expert’s thoughts on new atheism as a religion
Here is That Secret Gnosis Evolutionists Have
In the previous post we learned that evolutionists have a secret gnosis. They say science must be limited to naturalistic explanations (the so-called methodological naturalism), yet their science knows no limits (the so-called property of completeness) and is presented as a reasonably accurate model of reality (the so-called property of realism). Now there’s nothing wrong with constraining science to methodological naturalism, but what if there is a phenomenon that is not natural? Then the methodological naturalism constraint could not provide an accurate explanation. We would either have to avoid such phenomena (incompleteness), or we would have to settle for inaccurate explanations (anti realism). But evolutionists do not settle for such limitations. How can they mandate method (specifically methodological naturalism) and Read More ›
Attempt to repeal Louisiana’s “okay to teach Darwin’s flaws” bill fails
Astronomers: Not searching for planets to colonize is like dismissing Columbus’1492 journey?
From The Best Schools: Seeing Past Darwin I: The Machine Metaphor
Mathematician Granville Sewell denied right to respond to rebuttals in journal
Astronomers find new planet capable of supporting hype
From The Best Schools: Why Head Start programs are usually a bust
Hyperskeptic Michael Shermer thinks that gravity leaks out to other universes
Dave Coppedge is back to keeping score on planet theories
Defining Methodological Naturalism
It’s been a while since we had a good discussion about Methodological Naturalism. This time around, I want to start out simple: I’m asking everyone, particularly those who believe methodological naturalism is essential to science (Matzke, I’m looking at you) to define it. More below.